LETTER: Legislators should leave Prop B alone

Monday, January 3, 2011 | 11:23 a.m. CST; updated 5:23 p.m. CST, Monday, January 3, 2011

Regarding the recent letter published in the Missourian, Rep. Chris Kelly is wrong to suggest that state legislators should seek further compromise over Missouri's puppy mills after voters put the issue to rest ("Rational approach needed to fix Prop B," Dec. 27).

Rep. Kelly suggests that the lack of a funding mechanism within Proposition B provides a reason to tamper with the measure. But Prop. B doesn't call for additional spending, and by any objective view will save state dollars.

Prop. B neither alters the Department of Agriculture's existing inspection system nor calls for additional inspections. It sets standards of care so simple (floors must be solid, cages cannot be stacked, etc.) that local sheriffs who respond to complaints about substandard facilities will be able to apply charges on the spot and avoid calling in overextended Agriculture staff experts.

Additionally, under the old law, shoddy facilities were allowed to continue operating despite racking up repeated serious violations, year after year. Under Prop B, the worst offenders will face additional criminal enforcement, and the state will no longer just issue toothless citations over and over again.

Most importantly, as Rep. Kelly states, "It is beyond question that Missouri has a real and serious problem with some irresponsible dog breeders. Further, the General Assembly failed to deal with it... ."

Melody Whitworth is the Columbia representative for Dogs Deserve Better.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Marina Shane January 3, 2011 | 1:46 p.m.

I fully agree! Our legislators need to respect the voting process. Otherwise, why vote at all if our legislators are going to do as they please anyway? Missourians voted yes to Prop B.
Rep. Chris Kelly is wrong to suggest that state legislators should seek further compromise over Missouri's puppy mills after voters put the issue to rest.
Marina Shane-Lewis

(Report Comment)
James Fairchild January 3, 2011 | 3:50 p.m.

If I were purchasing a dog I would be interested in a receipt that acknowledged that the dog was raised in a facility that was fully inspected and certified by the MO Dept. of Agriculture (or a newly designated Agency). This would go a long way in correcting the ongoing problem with breeders that do not register as a licensed breeder. As for funding....this should come from the Federal USDA which pours out billions of dollars each year to commodity programs and animal agriculture. Many of those opposed to Prop B benefit greatly from exisitng USDA programs. Ironic, is it not?

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer January 9, 2011 | 9:17 a.m.

What a joke on Missouri! HSUS-funded legislation that will end up bankrupting a viable billion-dollar industry in our state. What does HSUS, based in Washington, DC care about Missouri? It will only weaken our state for their next assault on our agriculture. Our legislators MUST repeal proposition B and prevent the voters from reaping the unintended consequences of their emotional decisions. HSUS has begun to kill rural Missouri, unless our legislators act NOW.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 11, 2011 | 12:45 p.m.

Can Ruth Keezer please explain why the 'greedy' Hsus would 'eliminate agriculture' and 'take away all animals" and 'force us all to become vegans" thus eliminating their 'inflated' salaries and 'legislating' themselves out of a job?

If I owned a garage, would I want to 'eliminate' cars?
If I were a plumber, would I force everyone to live in a tent?
If I were a tree surgeon, would I want to "kill" all the trees?

Did someone sleep through common sense class?

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.